"I do want to shift the culture away from crypto being associated only with cryptocurrency," Chelsea Manning recently told a digital assets news site named the Block. In a world where celebrities are coughing up more than half a million dollars for a jpeg of a cartoon ape, Manning says that the sector has "unequivocally" been overrun by greed... She says this has resulted in a huge misunderstanding of crypto by critics, drawing it away from its privacy-focused roots.

"Without cryptography, my entire life history wouldn't have been able to take place," she says. In 2010, Manning, then a soldier in the US Army, used encrypted communication services to disclose classified information to Julian Assange, which was later posted on WikiLeaks.

Now, she's a part of privacy blockchain startup Nym as both a security analyst and serving in a hardware optimization role. The Switzerland-based Nym is a decentralized network that uses blockchain technology to mix and scramble packets of metadata — e.g. your IP address, who you talk to, and when and where.... Manning sees Nym as the successor to privacy tech such as the Tor browser and VPNs.

Tor, however, has been used both as a way for people in unstable countries to access information and by bad actors looking to access dark web marketplaces such as The Silk Road. Nym says that there are disincentives put in place to stop such abuse via the validation and verification of actors running the nodes on the network. And while blockchain technology is often associated with transparency as opposed to privacy, Nym says it is only the nodes of the so-called mixnet that are ledger-based — and none of the data itself is stored on the ledger. Manning and her colleagues at Nym hope that its mixnet can act as the infrastructure upon which applications can be built to create a privacy-focused internet.

By doing this, they hope to foster an alternative to surveillance capitalism — a term coined by academic Shoshana Zuboff to describe the tracking and commodification of personal data shared online for profit by big tech.

What happened after U.S. prosecutors indicted an NFT marketplace's product manager for insider trading? Vice reports: The reaction among crypto investors was largely characterized by surprise, and an acknowledgement that trading on insider information (considered by some to be A-OK in private markets) is rampant in the space. "Bro they are prosecuting insider trading on NFTs. we're all fucked," said one pseudonymous user in reply to a tweet about the case by Steven Zheng, director of research at The Block. "This is pretty shocking. I can't imagine any NFT or DeFi developer doesn't somehow profit from insider trading," said another.

Of course, not every NFT investor sees this kind of activity as acceptable. Traders themselves first brought Chastain's activity to light in September using blockchain records. A pseudonymous NFT trader, who goes by Zuwu, pointed out those trades, which were easily traceable to Chastain's publicly-known Etheruem address.

Unlike Chastain, other NFT traders involved in potential insider trades are often too careful to leave traces. When they do, blockchain sleuths are quick to uncover those signs of unsavory behavior and call them out — a recent phenomenon that attempts to bring some justice to an otherwise permissive market.

As a result, that surprise move by the U.S. Department of Justice has NFT traders wondering what's on the horizon for this largely unregulated industry. "Insider trading is a pretty common problem in the NFT space, especially in the case of hyped-up NFT collections as lots of stuff on the market is being driven by FOMO," Fedor Linnik, an NFT trader and creator, told Motherboard.
The article also explores the question of whether the NFT marketplace falls under same restrictions as stock trading, with a professor of securities law calling it "somewhat misleading" to label this an "insider trading" case.

Even to call it a wire fraud case is a stretch, the professor tells them, adding "If it goes to a jury they will wonder why they should care whether someone traded jpegs ahead of them being moved around on a webpage."

Bumblebees are eligible for protection as endangered or threatened "fish" under California law, a state appeals court held in a win for environmental groups and the state's Fish and Game Commission. From a report: The Sacramento-based California Court of Appeal reversed a lower court's ruling Tuesday for seven agricultural groups who argued that the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) expressly protects only "birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and plants" -- not insects.

While "fish" is "commonly understood to refer to aquatic species, the term of art employed by the Legislature ... is not so limited," Associate Justice Ronald Robie wrote for the appeals court. CESA itself does not define "fish," but the law is part of the California Fish and Game Code. The code's definition includes any "mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate (or) amphibian," Robie wrote. All those categories "encompass terrestrial and aquatic species," and the state legislature has already approved the listing of at least one land-based mollusk, the opinion said.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: Amazon's attempt to dismiss a lawsuit, brought by one of its senior software engineers, asking it to reimburse workers for internet and electricity costs racked up while working from home in the pandemic, has been rejected by a California judge. David George Williams sued his employer for refusing to foot his monthly home office expenses, claiming Amazon is violating California's labor laws. The state's Labor Code section 2802 states: "An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer."

Williams reckons Amazon should not only be paying for its techies' home internet and electricity, but also for any other expenses related to their ad-hoc home office space during the pandemic. Williams sued the cloud giant on behalf of himself and over 4,000 workers employed in California across 12 locations, arguing these costs will range from $50 to $100 per month during the time they were told to stay away from corporate campuses as the coronavirus spread. [...] Amazon's lawyers, however, believe the broadband and utility bills, and similar expenses, aren't the company's problem since it was following shelter-at-home orders, which require employees to stay away from the office.

But Vince Chhabaria, a US federal district judge in northern California, slapped down Amazon's attempt to kill off the lawsuit, and said the local government's orders don't necessarily absolve the company from liability. "What matters is whether Williams incurred those expenses 'in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer'," Judge Chhabaria ruled [PDF] this week. "According to the complaint, Amazon expected Williams to continue to work from home after the stay-at-home orders were imposed. That is sufficient to plausibly allege liability, even if Amazon itself was not the but-for cause of the shift to remote work. Williams also plausibly alleges that his expenditures were necessary to do his job." Chhabaria did grant Amazon's request to dismiss the engineer's claims that it violated California's laws alleging "unfair business practices," but gave Williams's legal team 14 days to file an amended complaint.

The New York state legislature has passed the United States' first "right to repair" bill covering electronics. The Verge reports: Called the Fair Repair Act, the measure would require all manufacturers who sell "digital electronic products" within state borders to make tools, parts, and instructions for repair available to both consumers and independent shops. Having passed the legislature, it is awaiting signature by Governor Kathy Hochul, who is expected to support the measure. The measure will take effect one year after it passes into law.

Self-repair groups like iFixit have applauded the ruling, calling it "one giant leap for repairkind" in a blog post following the announcement. "The passage of this bill means that repairs should become less expensive and more comprehensive: people who want to fix their own stuff can," the post reads. "Where before, manufacturers could push consumers to use manufacturer-authorized shops, now they'll have to compete."

Committee leaders in both the House and Senate are poised to introduce an online privacy bill, with key lawmakers releasing a bipartisan draft Friday. From a report: The U.S. has lagged behind the E.U. and China in establishing national privacy rules for online platforms, but this bipartisan effort shows signs of life even as the looming midterms mark the unofficial end of legislating. House Energy & Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ), ranking member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) on Friday unveiled a discussion draft of their American Data Privacy and Protection Act. The bill would require companies to minimize the data they collect, ban targeted advertising to children under 17 years old and allow people to sue companies for violations under certain circumstances.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Platforms such as YouTube and Uploaded could be directly liable for the copyright-infringing uploads of their users. The German Federal Court of Justice came to this conclusion based on advice from the EU's top court. Several liability lawsuits will now be sent back to the lower court to decide whether damages are indeed warranted.

The Federal Court's decision opens the door to a potential liability ruling. Whether damages are indeed warranted depends on the situation, which will require review by the lower courts. In essence, the courts will now have to decide whether the measures YouTube and Uploaded have taken in response to the reported copyright infringements are sufficient. As such, it will be among the first cases where the "upload filter" requirements of the Copyright Directive will be put to the test.

ExpressVPN has removed its servers from India, becoming the first major virtual private network (VPN) provider to do so in the aftermath of the recent cybersecurity rules introduced by the country's cybersecurity agency. The rules require VPN providers to store user data for a period of five years. ExpressVPN said it "refuses to participate in the Indian government's attempts to limit internet freedom." The India Express reports: In a blog post, the British Virgin Island-based company said that with the introduction of the new cybersecurity rules by the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), it has made a "very straightforward decision to remove our Indian-based VPN servers." While ExpressVPN is the first to pull its services from India, other VPN providers like NordVPN have also taken a similar stance.

The guidelines, released by CERT-In on April 26, asked VPN service providers along with data centers and cloud service providers, to store information such as names, e-mail IDs, contact numbers, and IP addresses (among other things) of their customers for a period of five years. The government said it wants these details to fight cybercrime, but the industry argues that privacy is the main selling points of VPN services, and such a move would be in breach of the privacy cover provided by VPN platforms.

ExpressVPN described the cybersecurity rules as "broad" and "overreaching." "The law is also overreaching and so broad as to open up the window for potential abuse. We believe the damage done by potential misuse of this kind of law far outweighs any benefit that lawmakers claim would come from it," ExpressVPN said. It added that while CERT-In's rules are intended to fight cybercrime, they are "incompatible with the purpose of VPNs, which are designed to keep users' online activity private." Indian users of ExpressVPN will still be able to use its service via "virtual" India servers located in Singapore and the UK. "We will never collect logs of user activity, including no logging of browsing history, traffic destination, data content, or DNS queries. We also never store connection logs, meaning no logs of IP addresses, outgoing VPN IP addresses, connection timestamps, or session durations," the company said.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBC News: The federal privacy commissioner's investigation into the Tim Hortons mobile app found that the app unnecessarily collected extensive amounts of data without obtaining adequate consent from users. The commissioner's report, which was published Wednesday morning, states that Tim Hortons collected granular location data for the purpose of targeted advertising and the promotion of its products but that the company never used the data for those purposes. "The consequences associated with the App's collection of that data, the vast majority of which was collected when the App was not in use, represented a loss of Users' privacy that was not proportional to the potential benefits Tim Hortons may have hoped to gain from improved targeted promotion of its coffee and associated products," the report read.

The joint investigation was launched about two years ago by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in conjunction with similar authorities in British Columbia, Quebec and Alberta. It came after reporting from the Financial Post found that the Tim Hortons app tracked users' geolocation while users were not using the app. According to a presentation to investors shared in May, the restaurant chain's app has four million active users.

Tim Hortons was using a third-party service provider, Radar, to collect geolocation data of users. In August 2020, Tim Hortons stopped collecting location data. However, the investigation found that there was a lack of contractual protections for users' personal information while being processed by Radar. The report describes the language in the contractual clauses to be "vague and permissive," which could have allowed Radar to use the personal information collected in aggregated or de-identified form for its own business. [...] The report states that Tim Hortons also agreed to delete all granular location data and to have third-party service providers do so as well, as per recommendations from the privacy authorities. The company also agreed to establish a privacy management program for its app and all future apps to ensure they are compliant with federal and provincial privacy legislation. Given these remedies, the report found that while the Tim Hortons app was not compliant with privacy laws, the company has since taken measures to resolve the issues. "We've strengthened our internal team that's dedicated to enhancing best practices when it comes to privacy and we're continuing to focus on ensuring that guests can make informed decisions about their data when using our app," a statement from Tim Hortons released on Wednesday said.

Vodafone is piloting a new advertising ID system called TrustPid, which will work as a persistent user tracker at the mobile Internet Service Provider (ISP) level. Vodafone explains that TrustPiD will be generated through randomness, and its subscribers will have the option to manage their consent over accepting the tracking via the company's Privacy Portal. BleepingComputer reports: The new system is in test phase in Germany and is intended to be impossible to bypass from within the web browser settings or through cookie blocking or IP address masking. The mobile carrier plans to assign a fixed ID to each customer and associate all user activity with it. The ID will be based on a number of parameters, so that the system will be able to maintain persistence. Then, the mobile ISP creates a personal profile based on that ID and helps advertisers serve targeted ads to each customer without disclosing any identification details.

According to Vodafone, the problem that arises for its internet subscribers is that the "free" parts of the internet are threatened by stricter cookie blocking and privacy-boosting schemes. These new models threaten the targeted advertising industry, and according to Vodafone, the danger of this is losing content and platforms currently supported by ads. "Consumers appreciate the idea of a 'free' Internet, but this comes with a trade-off: publishers need a sustainable revenue model, meaning that it becomes essential to add subscription paywalls or rely on advertising to maintain free access to high-quality content," reads the explanation on the TrustPiD website, managed by Vodafone Sales and Services Limited.

The Supreme Court blocked a controversial Texas social media law from taking effect in a decision released (PDF) on Tuesday, after the tech industry and other opponents warned it could allow for hateful content to run rampant online. CNBC reports: The law, HB20, prohibits online platforms from moderating or removing content based on viewpoint. It stems from a common charge on the right that major California-based social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are biased in their moderation strategies and disproportionately quiet conservative voices. The platforms have said they apply their community guidelines evenly and it's often the case that right-leaning users rank among the highest in engagement.

In the 5-4 decision, Alito dissented from the decision to lift the stay, issuing a written explanation for his vote, which was joined by two other conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, also voted against vacating the stay. Alito's dissent opened by acknowledging the significance of the case for social media companies and for states that would regulate how those companies can control the content on their platforms. "This application concerns issues of great importance that will plainly merit this Court's review," Alito wrote. "Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news. At issue is a ground-breaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day." The Supreme Court's decision has implications for other states that may consider legislation similar to that in Texas. Florida's legislature has already passed a similar social media law, but it has so far been blocked by the courts.

A farmer in Missouri said he had to go to complain to the Federal Trade Commission in order to get his tractor repaired by the only John Deere dealership in his area, showing how without the right to repair farmers are bound by the whims of the corporations who have a monopoly on repair. From a report:Jared Wilson had a problem with the AC in his John Deere tractor. It wasn't running and he needed to finish planting his corn and soybeans. The tractor would run, but finishing the plant would be a miserable experience in the heat of the Missouri spring. According to an affidavit Wilson filed to the FTC, he called the local John Deere dealership and asked for an appointment. The manager told him he didn't want his business. In the FTC complaint, Wilson is asking the commission to open a consumer protection investigation. Wilson and the manager talked on April 14, according to an affidavit about the incident filed with the FTC on April 16. Wilson told Motherboard he didn't know the AC had gone out until temperatures started creeping up in April. "When it hits 70 degrees it's almost unbearable inside the cab because it's all just glass and you've got a super hot motor sitting in front of you," he said.

Researchers suspect the checkm8[dot]info service is used by criminals to launder stolen iPhones. The tool's administrator claims the service is just a response to Apple's poor right to repair policies. From a report: "Activation Lock," a message displayed across the iPhone's screen read. "This iPhone is linked to an Apple ID. Enter the Apple ID and password that were used to set up this iPhone." This lock essentially turns iPhones into very expensive paperweights until the owner enters the requested credentials. The feature is designed to stop anyone else from using the phone if it's lost, or thieves from making money by reselling a stolen device. In part, Activation Lock is intended to make iPhones less attractive to thieves because stolen devices can't be used.

Now, an underground group is offering people a way to strip that lock from certain iPhones with its pay-for-hacking service. iOS security experts suspect it is being used to remove protections from stolen iPhones. The hacking group called Checkm8[dot]info offering the service, which lifts its name from a popular free-to-use jailbreak, insists its tool cannot be used by thieves. "Our goal is the ability to repair electronics as it's the key to saving resources, tackling e-waste and environmental damage," the administrator of Checkm8[dot]info told Motherboard in an email. Motherboard has previously written about how criminals have used phishing emails to grab necessary login credentials to remove the Activation Lock. Checkm8[dot]info provides a much easier method, and appears to streamline what is ordinarily a complicated process into one that non-technical users can follow. Checkm8[dot]info is correct in that Activation Lock can be frustrating to iPhone repair professionals, electronic waste facilities, and refurbishers, and has caused many perfectly good phones obtained through legal means to be shredded or destroyed. A user of the Checkm8[dot]info site told Motherboard they used the service as part of their legal phone reselling business.

IBM must pay $1.6 billion to BMC Software for swapping in its own software while servicing their mutual client, a Houston federal judge ruled. From a report: US District Judge Gray Miller, after a seven-day non-jury trial, rejected IBM's claim that their mutual client AT&T opted to switch software products on its own and ruled that IBM's role in the decision to dump BMC "smacked of intentional wrongdoing." For more than a decade, IBM serviced AT&T's mainframe computers, which ran on rival BMC's software products. IBM and BMC have long operated under a carefully negotiated agreement that forbids IBM from encouraging mutual clients, like AT&T, to switch to IBM's competing software product line. BMC sued IBM in 2017 claiming its rival intended to breach their agreement and poach AT&T's software business when the two companies renewed their power-sharing deal in 2015. IBM countered that AT&T dumped BMC's products and jumped to IBM for its own reasons, which IBM claims is fair game under its BMC agreement.

Supreme Court officials are escalating their search for the source of the leaked draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, taking steps to require law clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits, three sources with knowledge of the efforts have told CNN. From the report: Some clerks are apparently so alarmed over the moves, particularly the sudden requests for private cell data, that they have begun exploring whether to hire outside counsel. The court's moves are unprecedented and the most striking development to date in the investigation into who might have provided Politico with the draft opinion it published on May 2. The probe has intensified the already high tensions at the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority is poised to roll back a half-century of abortion rights and privacy protections. Chief Justice John Roberts met with law clerks as a group after the breach, CNN has learned, but it is not known whether any systematic individual interviews have occurred.

Lawyers outside the court who have become aware of the new inquiries related to cell phone details warn of potential intrusiveness on clerks' personal activities, irrespective of any disclosure to the news media, and say they may feel the need to obtain independent counsel. "That's what similarly situated individuals would do in virtually any other government investigation," said one appellate lawyer with experience in investigations and knowledge of the new demands on law clerks. "It would be hypocritical for the Supreme Court to prevent its own employees from taking advantage of that fundamental legal protection." Sources familiar with efforts underway say the exact language of the affidavits or the intended scope of that cell phone search -- content or time period covered -- is not yet clear.

India has withdrawn a warning that asked users to not share photocopies of their national biometric ID following a widespread uproar from users on social media, many of whom pointed that this is the first time they were hearing about such a possibility. From a report: A regional office of UIDAI, the body that oversees the national biometric ID system Aadhaar, warned users on Friday that "unlicensed private entities" such as hotels and theatre halls are "not permitted to collect or keep copies of Aadhaar," a 12-digit unique number that ties an individual's fingerprints and retina scan, and people should avoid sharing photocopies of their Aadhaar to prevent misuse.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has started legal proceedings in the Federal Court against Mastercard Asia Pacific and Mastercard Australia for alleged anti-competitive conduct that substantially lessened competition in the supply of debit card acceptance services. From a report: The consumer watchdog alleges between November 2017 to at least November 2020 that Mastercard had a "substantial degree of power" in the market for the supply of credit card acceptance services under the Reserve Bank of Australia's (RBA) least-cost routing initiative. The least-cost routing initiative aimed to give merchants the ability to choose which debit card network processed their contactless dual-network debit card payments -- whether that was Mastercard, Visa, or Eftpos -- and was intended to increase competition in the supply of debit card acceptance services, while reduce payments costs associated with processing debit card payments for businesses.

For dual-network debit card payments, the fees paid by a merchant can vary depending on the debit card network used for processing the transaction. The ACCC alleges that in response the least-cost routing initiative, Mastercard entered into agreements with more than 20 major retailers, including supermarkets, fast food chains, and clothing retailers, to offer cheaper interchange rates for processing credit card payments if they agreed to process Mastercard-Eftpos debit card transactions through the Mastercard network, rather than the Eftpos network, even though Eftpos was often the lowest cost provider.

North Carolina's largest newspaper, Raleigh's News & Observer newspaper, reports that "In the face of stiff opposition from farm equipment companies and dealers, North Carolina state senators on Tuesday walked back a provision that would have widened access to the repair of farming equipment." The so-called "right to repair" provision was included in the Farm Act of 2022, Senate Bill 762, which was discussed Tuesday in the Senate's Agriculture, Energy and Environment Committee. As introduced, the bill would have required manufacturers of farming equipment that relies on digital components to make diagnostic equipment and parts available at "fair and reasonable terms." Representatives of national farm equipment trade groups and North Carolina equipment dealers opposed the bill. Allowing repairs outside of authorized shops, they argued, could damage equipment, pose a risk of injury, and make it possible for farming equipment to violate the Clean Air Act.

After hearing from seven people, Sen. Brent Jackson, a Sampson County Republican, replaced the right to repair provision with language calling on the General Assembly's Agricultural and Forestry Awareness Study Commission to evaluate whether further action is necessary.
More from North Carolina TV station WRAL: Manufacturers and their licensed dealerships counter that they spend millions of dollars stocking parts and training field technicians to service equipment safely and within the parameters of federal laws like the Clean Air Act. More than a dozen dealers and representatives lined up to speak against the provision in the state Senate agriculture committee Tuesday... [Right-to-repair] supporters were far outnumbered by opponents, who warned that giving consumers access to embedded software would allow unsafe or illegal modifications to the equipment, from emissions compliance to safety shutoffs.

Philip Brooks, a dealer from Monroe, said his service techs receive extensive training. "A simple common rail diesel system with a line broken loose with a wrench under pressure can kill a man. We need to be careful of all these things," he told the committee.

Brian Jennings, a farm equipment dealer from Elizabeth City, testified: "I do not support the attacks — and I call them attacks — on our business. We are contracted dealers. We spend a lot of money to be dealers."

It was "the furthest any Right to Repair bill for consumer electronics has come to becoming law" in America, reports the nonprofit California Public Interest Research Group.

And yet... The California Senate Appropriations committee failed to pass Sen. Susan Eggman's Right to Repair bill, SB 983, on May 19, which would have significantly expanded Californians' access to the parts, tools, and service information needed to fix consumer electronics and appliances.... The policy had broad, bipartisan support, with 75% of Californians and majorities of both parties supporting Right to Repair. The bill, which passed through the judiciary committee with only a single opposing vote, met the same fate as a similarly popular medical Right to Repair bill that Sen. Eggman introduced in 2021. Sander Kushen, CALPIRG Advocate issued the following statement in response... "SB 983 could have saved California households as much as $4.3 billion a year in reduced spending on electronics and helped Californians reduce toxic electronic waste. Instead, industry groups' heavy lobbying effort helped to kill the bill."
"Other states are pursuing similar legislation and there's also a pending federal bill," reports the San Francisco Chronicle" The right-to-repair movement is gaining steam with President Biden as a vocal advocate. In July 2021, he asked the Federal Trade Commission to draft right-to-repair rules. The FTC said it will target repairs restrictions as antitrust violations.

In recent months, major tech players have opened up limited ways to help consumers fix stuff. Apple has said it will sell manuals, parts and tools but only to owners of the iPhone 12 and 13 models. Microsoft said it's looking into repair options for its computer accessories. Google will sell replacement parts for Pixel smartphones via iFixit, a self-described "wikipedia of repair."
But they also explore why the California bill failed: The legislative bill, which would have been the first of its kind in the United States, would have required makers of electronic gear such as cell phones, game consoles, washers and dryers, computers — almost anything with a chip inside — to ease the route to fixing broken stuff by providing parts, tools and manuals at reasonable prices. Supporters pitched it as a no-brainer to save consumers money and reduce e-waste.

But the electronics industry says that it could have created a free-for-all, allowing pirates to flourish, unauthorized people to access sensitive information and trade secrets to be violated... "We're going up against the rights of some of the biggest companies in the world," said Kevin O'Reilly, a Right to Repair campaign director with U.S. Public Interest Research Group, or PIRG. He's also associated with CALPIRG. "Apple and Google and other tech giants have either lobbied against the bill or supported organizations that lobbied against the bill."

The BBC reports: A Persian-language content moderator for Instagram and a former content moderator have said Iranian intelligence officials offered them money to remove Instagram accounts of journalists and activists....

Both content moderators also accused some Iranian colleagues of exhibiting "pro-regime bias" when reviewing posts on the photo-sharing service. They spoke to the BBC after many Iranian Instagram users complained that posts about recent anti-government protests in their country had been deleted. Instagram's owner, Meta Platforms, and the third-party company it uses to moderate content said there was no validity to the claims....

The protests received very little coverage on Iranian state media, meaning that Iranians had to rely on Instagram and other social media sites to learn what was happening on the ground. As the unrest continued, users noticed that some videos posted on Instagram were being removed....

The former content moderator told the BBC that he "personally knew some reviewers who supported the Iranian regime and received instructions from Iran"....

All three interviewees said it was likely that some videos of the protests were removed because they included people shouting: "Death to Khamenei".

Meta has previously said that its guidelines around incitement of violence prohibit calls for the death of a head of state. However, in Iran the phrase "Death to..." is commonly chanted at protests to express discontent with something or someone, rather than to express an actual threat.